Middle Pane

absurdism, philosophy, science, music



Mirror Image

Do you see yourself only when you look in a mirror?  Or do you also see yourself when you  look at everything you encounter?  Just as a mirror reflects a physical representation of how you view yourself, the world reflects your true nature.  Your immediate surroundings represent, in physical form, things that you like.  You surround yourself with things that make you happy and things that you think you need to live the life that you think you want.

analyzing mirror self-recognition
analyzing mirror self-recognition (Photo credit: TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³)

Your surroundings can be neat or cluttered, also representing the state of your being.  You can take actions to change your surroundings by creating or destroying.  Your actions reflect your mind state and your reaction to those actions may represent something else entirely.  There can be a conflict between the action and the emotion related to that action.  That must surely represent that you are out of harmony with yourself (Karma).  At this point you have to step back and feel the emotion, but not judge it.  With awareness, you can change your actions.

Continue reading “Mirror Image”

Are we real?

This BBC documentary is another “multiverse” explanation.  They start out with physics concepts putting emphasis on the cosmological constant and then move more into metaphysics (which you really have to do at some point).  The cosmological constant is specific out to 120 decimal places.  Einstein used this to describe energy density of the vacuum of space.  I won’t pretend to really understand what that means except it is key to a number of physics equations.  Anyway, even changing the 120th place of the number alters life as we know it.  If there are constants like this (pi, gravity, speed of light) then that seems to imply that something is setting that value.  The theory of the multiverse is used to side-step the notion of a creator by saying that all possibilities exist at the same time.  So there are universes that represent all possible values.  But then there has to be something that sort of lays it all out.

The issue I have is that if there is a simulator that can tune the variables and change the algorithms, then wouldn’t it at some point want to interact with the simulation once the simulation got to a certain point?  Or if there are simply multiple universes that represent all permutations of constants and algorithms, then wouldn’t there be a few that could break through the shell and contact the other universes?  The answer can always be “No, we are not one of the breakthrough universes” or “We are not mature enough yet”, but I have to say why.  We are manipulating the world around us at an unbelievable rate.  If we can dream it up, we can make it happen in the physical world.  All that growth seems to do nothing for how we treat our fellow human beings, so technological growth without compassion is useless.  If there is some sort of singularity event, we will all literally be connected and one.  How can something that is one fight with itself?  Insanity.

Forgetting all of the metaphysical multiverse, multiworld stuff, it is hard to deny that things happen from an individual’s own perspective.  This perspective is filtered through our senses which actually interact with the world.  The senses are interpreted by the brain and some sort of thought is formed.  That experience is unique, individual.  Yet there is an undercurrent of reality that the senses directly interact with or we are really interacting with everyone else’s experience.  Experience experiencing experience.


In philosophy, “the Absurd” refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean “logically impossible”, but rather “humanly impossible”.

Absurdism on the surface seems similar to Nihilism.  The distinction being that Nihilism says there isn’t meaning, while Absurdism says that there may be meaning, but it is humanly impossible to know meaning.  Man can search for meaning.  He may find it on a personal level, but meaning at the universal level is unknowable.  The death of the physical body represents a transcendence beyond which us inhabiting a physical body cannot know.  Anything that anyone says about transcendence of the physical while on the plane of the physical may be true, but there is no proof that you can hand to someone and say “this is it”.  So essentially, it is just hearsay and possibly fabrications of the mind.  This is my interpretation, not necessarily Camus‘.

They cut the rug that ties the room together

I temper that with it may just be our understanding of the physical that is limiting.  Do our preconceived notions of how the physical world behaves limit what we can accept?  If there was a breakthrough in quantum physics that changed the overall understanding of the universe, what would it mean?  If science shows that the physical world is interconnected in a provable way, then does that change the search for meaning?  I think that this goes to the point of absurdism that the quest can and probably must continue.

Tim Schreder

It all ends up just being labels of one thing or another.  And as long as there are labels, there is identification and separation.  I sometimes wonder if the ultimate teaching is no teaching.  I am agnostic in many of my viewpoints.  Not necessarily meaning that I don’t know or don’t want to know, but that it doesn’t really matter.  Even the quest for enlightenment is subject to question, and I can say that it does not necessarily need to occur.  Enlightenment can just happen.  Even saying that it can happen or is happening is applying a label.  Beneath the currents of perception lies a reality that just is without action or state.

The cogitations of one individual human are no more or less important than the sentience of an ocean, or the arc of a comet, or the afternoon dream of a sleeping Himalayan house cat. The quality and character may be different, but can the ideas of a man really be more essential than the blazing light of a sun? Our doings are exercises in conduct and growth. Specifics are irrelevant. It’s all yard work in the end.

I listened to this Avett Brothers song this morning.  It seems quite appropriate for this post.  Meanings are jumbled as always, but does the singer determine intent or the listener?

If you finally stop caring
Just don’t go and tell someone that does
Cause even though I know there’s hope in
Every morning song
I have to find that melody alone

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: